Early Release Prisoners: Preventing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his Question, and for the opportunity to discuss these critical issues that are close to his and all our hearts. The noble Lord has long argued that, if people are to leave crime behind, we must make sure that support and stability, including a safe place to live, are waiting for them beyond the prison gates. I could not agree more. That does not just mean a bed and a roof, although that is important. It means much more than that: somewhere they can call home, feel safe, keep their belongings, receive a letter or register for a GP. Ultimately, it means somewhere they can start a new chapter in their lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, said, it is about dignity, stability, second chances and, above all, hope.

The evidence is clear. People released from prison without stable accommodation are more than twice as likely to reoffend as those who do. On the question from a number of noble Lords about Friday releases, progress has been made. It is a lot better than it used to be, but we still need to do more. The more stable the prison population and the way we do our releases are, the better that will become. However, it should not surprise us that it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild your life if you do not know where you will sleep each night. That is why accommodation is an essential foundation for rehabilitation, but it is out of reach for far too many and there are no quick or simple fixes.

The first and most important thing we can do is to bring stability to the prison system. Too many offenders were trapped in a relentless cycle, locked up for short periods with little time to address their issues, released with no support and, almost inevitably, returning to prison. I am sure a number of noble Lords will have seen, as I have, people standing outside the prison gates with a plastic bag with “HMP” written on it, with a few pathetic possessions and nowhere to live that night. It is not surprising that they go back.

We are taking a different approach, built around supporting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. We are already seeing results, with 75% of prisons and 90% of probation regions performing better. However, there is a long way to go and I am clear that we need to focus on what happens when somebody is inside prison and on what happens when they leave. As my noble friend Lady Hyde clearly said, Through the Gate work is vital, because preventing homelessness on release is not simply a housing issue; it is about public protection, rehabilitation and rebuilding lives. The example that my noble friend gave of Hayley shows just how complex it is, and also what a kind and generous person she is.

This is a challenge that the Ministry of Justice cannot solve alone; it is a team game. I am working closely with the housing sector and colleagues across government as part of our national plan to end homelessness. We inherited not just a prisons crisis but a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping in households and temporary accommodation more than doubled under the previous Government. This homelessness only reflects the wider pressures on housing across the country. Our national plan commits to halving the proportion of prison leavers who become homeless on their first night after release by the end of this Parliament, while increasing the number in settled accommodation after three months. There is a lot to do but they are important targets. All this is supported by record investment of £3.6 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services. These are ambitious goals, but I am ambitious and I am determined that we will meet them.

As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has spent years helpfully reminding us, families can make an extraordinary difference too. For many people leaving prison, it is a parent, partner, grandparent or child who gives them the strength to keep going. Strong family relationships remain one of the most powerful protections against reoffending. We know that imprisonment also has a profound impact on families, especially children, so supporting families to maintain those relationships where safe and appropriate to do so is absolutely crucial. That is why almost all public sector prisons offer specialist services to support prisoners and their families, and we are updating our policies to help prisoners do even more to strengthen family relationships. Our incredible charities and voluntary organisations, such as Housing First and Crisis, do an amazing job and play a vital role in turning people’s lives around. I must thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for mentioning the Clink. It is a brilliant organisation and I was sad when its project near Manchester, at HMP Styal, was closed—maybe it can get going again at some point.

I recognise the innovative approaches of residential community and charity projects, such as Hope Street in Southampton and Willowdene, which provide training, counselling, therapy and work opportunities all in one place—that is really important. I have not heard of Impact Justice in California, which offers a spare room for people who need it, but it reminds me of my childhood: people used to turn up at our house because my parents knew they did not have anywhere to live and would end up staying with us, sometimes for years. This is about stability, support and providing firm foundations for people to take their next steps. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned the Greater Change charity—I know a little about it, but am very happy to find out more—giving small grants and small donations to support people. It often does not take much money to make a big difference.

We are making sure that nobody leaves prison without the best possible chance of making a fresh start. That begins with having somewhere safe to go and support from day one. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, quite rightly emphasised, it is important that they get that support through the gate on day one. It means identifying housing needs earlier, improving information sharing and bringing prisons, probation and local authorities together well before someone is released, so that we are preventing homelessness, not responding to a person in crisis. We are already seeing excellent partnership working. Let me give one example: ID and banking administrators have been working in prisons for about three years now, to get everyone the documents they need. They work with the work coaches in DWP to get people on to universal credit so that they are good to go when they leave.

Too much still depends on where someone is released. A prison leaver’s chance of rebuilding their life should not depend on their postcode. I want people to receive the same high standard of support wherever they leave custody. They should be able to expect early engagement, a clear housing pathway and support that begins before they leave prison. We are using performance data to work out which areas need to improve and which areas are getting it right, so that we can learn from them. As part of this, we are working with MHCLG on new league tables which will show, by local authority, how many prison leavers end up homeless or rough sleeping on release. This will drive accountability and transparency, and I am pleased to announce that they will be published by the end of the year and then annually from next July.

We are piloting strategic housing advisory boards, along the same lines as the successful employment advisory boards I established a few years ago, to address the big systemic barriers prison leavers face when trying to find housing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle said, it is about co-ordinating this partnership. The regional outcomes will help because we have regional employment councils, which I hope will help co-ordinate this work as well.

Alongside this, we continue to invest in accommodation support. We recently added more than 200 beds to CAS3, the service that provides up to 84 nights of accommodation support following release, but we recognise that some prison leavers face particular challenges in finding housing, especially those serving IPP sentences. We are investing in a new single accommodation service, which brings together support delivered through commissioned rehabilitation services and “duty to refer” pathways into a single digital service. This is a big shift—the equivalent of moving from the Yellow Pages to booking.com—but, if we get it right, this digital tool will improve information sharing and make sure we can match prison leavers to the right accommodation and support, so that no one reaches the prison gate only to find they have nowhere to go.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how many prisoners released were over the age of 70. As of 31 March this year, 2,180 individuals held in prison in England and Wales were aged over 70, which represents 2.5% of the total prison population. Published data is not currently available on prison releases by age band. I was asked about the average stay on remand. Unfortunately, we do not currently hold this data. If there are any other questions that I have not covered, I will write.

To finish, the national plan to end homelessness includes a commitment to introduce a duty to collaborate, and we will legislate for this as soon as possible. I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will be slightly disappointed, because it will be when parliamentary time allows. However, we all recognise how important this is and we want to get on with it. This duty will compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness by identifying need earlier, intervening sooner and supporting people at crisis point.

As I said earlier, this is a team game. If we are to turn lives around and protect the British public, we need prisons, probation services, local authorities, housing providers, charities, families and communities all working together to make sure that everyone leaving prison has the opportunity of a safe, secure and stable home. This is about more than a bed for the night; it is about changing and even saving lives. Every prison gate should open not to homelessness but to hopefulness. On the possibility of fewer victims, safer communities and a better life, I thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue before the House and I look forward to ongoing discussions.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the continued detention of individuals serving Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences beyond their original tariff periods.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

In the two years since being in government, we have made significant progress to support IPP prisoners. We have reduced the number of never-released IPP prisoners by 21% and the number of IPP offenders in the community by 70%. IPP recalls fell by 31% in 2025 compared to 2024, and we have also changed the law through the Sentencing Act. Around 100 IPP offenders became eligible for earlier licence termination when these changes were implemented on 1 June.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has just confirmed, he said in the exchange with us on July 6:

“Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition”.—[Official Report, 6/7/26; col. 11.]


He has again shown that is true. However, the pace of release of IPP prisoners is still too slow. Prospective new Prime Minister Andy Burnham spoke on Tuesday in the other place of the need to

“change the way this country thinks about and works towards justice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/26; col. 891.]

After this clarion call, does the Minister expect the new Government to match his ambition with greater resources, resolve and courage, so that by 2029 at the very latest the legacy of the shameful injustice of IPP sentences will be no more?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will not be surprised that everybody I meet in prisons and probation, and around the whole justice sector, is ambitious for IPP prisoners. We are committed to ensuring that they get the support they need to progress. I am still ambitious, so that is why we are supporting the hardest to reach, especially IPP prisoners, those who we know are really stuck in the system. We are trialling a new IPP advocate role and giving IPP prisoners more experiences so they can progress, with specialists working with them, and when they go to approved premises, they are staying there longer and have more support. All these initiatives will help, but we need to remain ambitious, because I know, as many of us do, that IPP prisoners can get through. Having employed many of them myself, I believe in second chances and that they can get through.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if IPP prisoners beyond their tariff had been sentenced to a determinate term, which they would have been if they had had the good fortune to have been convicted on or after Monday 3 December 2012 and not before that date, they would have been released years ago?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is possible that some of these offenders may have been given a discretionary life sentence and therefore would still be subject to the parole process and therefore still in prison if they had not the met the statutory release test. It is also possible that some of these offenders may have been given standard determinate sentences and therefore could have been released by now. However, all IPP offenders are subject to review by the independent Parole Board, which has, in some cases repeatedly, found them unsafe to be released.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are now about 1,000 IPP prisoners still in custody and, of that 1,000, only about 50 are unsuitable for release at any time, by virtue of either their health or the seriousness of the criminal offence for which they were convicted? Does it not seem right that we should make an aggressive effort to release some of those 950 and require the Parole Board and those in charge of early release to concentrate on them rather than, for example, child rapists or other forms of sexual criminal?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is incorrect: 896 IPP prisoners have never been released; that is 11% down on last year. My view is that we need to get them into the right prison. Two years ago, only 70% of them were in the right prison; now 91% are in the right prison, and we need to support them so they can get out. Prisons like HMP Grendon, which is a therapeutic community, do good work with IPP prisoners, and HMP Warren Hill has specialist units to support them. I want them to progress as quickly as possible but as safely as possible, so when they are out, they can stay out and do so safely.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in his maiden speech in the other place, in relation to the Hillsborough law, Andy Burnham talked passionately about miscarriages of justice, as we have heard. He also commended victims’ families for campaigning for decades against state wrongs. Taking him at his word, will the Minister draw the new Prime Minister’s attention to the IPP scandal and suggest meeting IPP prisoners’ families to hear details of this shameful blight, on their lives and on the criminal justice system, and to hear their frustration when the state unfairly cites dangerousness as an excuse while releasing proven dangerous rapists early to solve an estate mismanagement problem—that is, prison overcrowding? They want to talk to people in power about this; the new Prime Minister is perfect. Please facilitate the introduction.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am glad the noble Baroness thinks that the new Prime Minister will be perfect. I was pleased to see the noble Baroness yesterday outside the Ministry of Justice with a number of ex-IPP prisoners and their families. I reiterate the important role that families play in the justice system. There are 193,000 children affected by parental imprisonment and a number of those are children whose parents are on IPP sentences. Some have come home and are then recalled back into custody. One of the key elements for people reforming and not reoffending is family ties. Yes, they need a job and somewhere safe to live, and we want them to be well, but families have a really important role, which is why we need to keep supporting the families of IPP prisoners.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I commend my noble friend for the enormous amount of work, time and energy that he is putting into this area. I know it is greatly appreciated by those who have campaigned for years. Will he take a look at the slowing of the work on progression plans and the progression board, not simply in relation to those who have never been released—the 896 to whom he referred—but on the length of time that those who have been recalled are spending in prison, which is of considerable concern in terms of what we are trying to do to rehabilitate and get people back into the community?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his kind words, and I look forward to seeing a number of noble Lords at the IPP Peers meeting on Monday. I will take away the point on the progression board that he mentions. However, I reiterate that we need prisons that work and a Probation Service that works. One of the things that I been focused on is performance in the justice system. I am pleased to inform Members of your Lordships’ House that 70% of our prisons and 90% of our probation regions are now performing better than they were. Self-harm and assaults on staff are down. To me, all that shows that we are getting to the right place, which will make it easier for often complex prisoners to get on so they can get out and stay out.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Will the noble Lord say how many IPP prisoners he has met and talked to within the last four weeks, and what he has learned from those conversations?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The last IPP prisoner I met was in HMP Birmingham—I think I was there three weeks ago. He was back on recall and facing further charges. The nature of the conversation was quite troubling, because I learned from him that he felt safer in prison than in the community. Also, he did not think that open prisons were always that good for long-term complex prisoners, which surprised me because I am a big fan of open prisons, having recruited lots of people from them. I went away with the challenge of how we ensure that IPP prisoners, when they go to open conditions, are not brought back. Too many go there quite quickly and then come back.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s recent report, published last week, acknowledges the obvious point that self-harm, violence and behavioural instability among IPP prisoners are linked to the long-term distress caused by the sentence itself, yet those very reactions may be liable to be relied upon as grounds to refuse release. Does the Minister consider that additional assessments and, indeed, progression plans are going to be sufficient to break that terrible cycle, or is more needed? Are we not required to be a little more courageous about the release of these long-term prisoners?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is right to bring this up because they are often the most complex individuals in our whole prison estate. The level of self-harm among this cohort can be pretty terrifying. There are a significant number of IPP prisoners in secure mental health hospitals, and that is the right place for them. However, we need to ensure that we have them in the right prison. As I mentioned, HMP Grendon and HMP Warren Hill are therapeutically informed environments, and the Phoenix wing we are starting next month in HMP Aylesbury is a specialist wing where we are trying things we have never tried before. The people we call our “red rated” are those who are the furthest away from release and they are often the most challenging IPP prisoners. We need to get progression support around them and give them hope, because we need them to believe that they can get out—too many times they have seen people go to progression panels and not get out. We need to make sure we do what we can to give them hope.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Prisoners

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what resources are being allocated to HM Prison and Probation Service and the Parole Board to expedite the progression of Imprisonment for Public Protection prisoners towards release.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

The IPP sentence is a stain on our justice system. I believe the best way to support IPP prisoners towards a safe and sustainable release is via the IPP action plan, well-run and well-resourced prisons, and a Probation Service that is thriving. The good news is that, according to the inspectorate, 75% of our prisons are achieving higher scores than in previous inspections, and 90% of our probation regions are too. That is the best way to expedite release.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that the fact that there are nearly 900 unreleased IPP prisoners still in custody, of whom 99% are over-tariff, is wholly unacceptable? How much will that shameful statistic be reduced in the next 12 months? What steps will be taken to reform the way the Parole Board and the currently laggard and dilatory post-release processes operate in these cases?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

From March 2025 to March 2026, there was an 11% reduction in the number of never-released IPP prisoners, but I want to get more men and women out for the first time and post recall. We need to do more, and we are doing more. We are rolling out IPP advocates to 12 prisons where there is a large concentration of IPP prisoners so that they can wrap their arm around these people and help them get ready for parole. We are establishing the Phoenix wing in HMP Aylesbury in August, which will be a specialist wing for those furthest from release, and the Parole Board review time has already reduced from an average of 18 months for IPP prisoners to 14.5 months—I aim to get it to 12 months soon. I also believe in employment and second chances. Having employed many IPP prisoners in the past, this to me is the most positive route we can take, so that when they get out, they stay out.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend on the time and commitment he has given to talking to organisations on behalf of prisoners and their families. Does he agree, however, that there appears to be an increasing logjam of those on recall who are held in prison often when the original allegation that got them there has already been set aside?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for all his continued support in this difficult area and for sending me a lot of cases that I can look at. The good news is that recall is down by 31%. Under the risk-assessed recall review, which is a specialist review where we can quickly release someone quickly, we had released 50 prisoners early up to September 2025—in the next couple of weeks, we will be releasing the updated figures, and I hope for that figure to be higher. We also have the round table of the Peers’ IPP group on 20 July, which I am really looking forward to, because we can go into this in more detail then.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister, whose personal commitment is not in doubt on this issue, tell us why the Government continue to reject a significant proportion of recommendations by the Parole Board for the transfer of IPP prisoners to open conditions? In answering that question, perhaps he will help me answer a mother who has written to me and whose son is an IPP prisoner. He was given a six-year sentence and has now served 18 years. She says: “He is 50 this year. I fear I will not see him liberated and free before I die”. She wants transfer to an open prison, because most of these prisoners are too traumatised and too mentally incapacitated to undertake the action plans.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am a big fan of open prisons. That is where the best recruitment is and that is where people reintegrate into society a lot more. I was in HMP Birmingham three weeks ago, where I met an IPP prisoner who had been to open conditions for the first time and then had asked to come back because he did not feel ready, so it is a good way of testing people on their journey. I would like to do more, but this comes back to the point that we want our prisons to be working well and then they have the time to really support people on that transition. However, we have to protect the public and we have to make sure that people are ready.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, we know that the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence adversely affects prisoners’ risk assessments. What are the Government doing to improve the mental health of IPP prisoners so as to improve their prospects of release?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It was important two years ago to get the IPP prisoners in the right prison so that they could get the support they needed. We have gone from the 70% range to now 95% of IPP prisoners being in the right prison, which means that they can get the right support. Again, it comes back to the question: do we have prisons that are working well and do we have the right support teams around those individuals? I am seeing that regularly. When I go around prisons, I am seeing things getting better, but we still need to do more. We also need to do more to support individuals who are neurodiverse IPP prisoners. The autistic wings that we are developing are a really positive step forward.

[Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman pointed to IPPs as a contributory factor in prisoner suicides. Indeed, the Minister of Justice’s own figures declare that there have been 92 self-inflicted deaths over the last 20 years since the introduction of the sentence—I can cite figures that suggest there have now been 96. What are we doing to reduce distress and keep people safe in our prisons, so that they may one day have the prospect of being safely released rather than dying by their own hand while in the care of the state?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is very important that we safely release people and that they are safe when they are in our care. That is especially so for IPP prisoners—as well as their families who are also trying to support them. Self-harm for both men and women is down in our prisons. The number of deaths up to March 2026 was also down, by 12%. Even so, these are people—and people who we need to help. We need to make sure that we have that wraparound support for them. They are often people who are unwell and, whether they are in secure hospital or not, they need our support.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, has thought been given to the support that families can give to these prisoners? Their support can be important, particularly on release, in minimising the risk of their having to be recalled because they have broken the rules.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is exactly right: families play a huge role—it is employment, it is housing and it is families. One important thing about open prisons, for example, is that prisoners can go out on day release and reintegrate. Some 193,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment, so we need to make sure that we help both the prisoner and their family on that journey.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, there appear to have been 3,000 IPP prisoners in 2024, 2,500 in 2025 and still close to 2,500 in 2026, with the never-released group dropping from 1,200 to around 950 in the same timeframe. In his response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Minister said that there had been an 11% reduction in the never-released group from 2025 to 2026. Is 11% also a firm commitment for the next 12 months, or will the department commit to even more?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition. Although I cannot put any figures on it, I can say that we are doing all that we can. I work with incredibly professional and dedicated teams within the Ministry of Justice. Whenever I go round a prison, I always meet an IPP prisoner; I sit in their cell and talk to them about where they are up to. I sense their hope as well as that of the staff who work with them, because it is very much a team effort.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the House understands the need to balance risk to the public from release against the injustice to IPP prisoners of their continued detention long after they have served their tariffs. Granted that we are making progress, does the Minister think that we yet have the balance right—even now, 13 years after the IPP sentence was abolished—when, every day, we release prisoners who have served determinate sentences and now need to do so to relieve pressure on space without the need for determination that their release is risk-free?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Release is never risk-free, but we need to balance the opportunity and the risk. I am seeing a much more stable Prison and Probation Service. By that, I mean that we have the right number of people in the right places with the right resources. I have been going round the country doing probation roadshows, talking to probation staff up and down the country about what our plan is to get through to next April, when we will have supply matching demand. Even though the focus of many of these conversations is on prisons, if we do not sort out and support probation—that is where the heavy lifting in the justice system is done—we will never make the progress that we all want to achieve.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

The Minister says that he is ambitious, which I am pleased to hear, but where in government is work to prevent people ending up in prison? I cannot see it. I cannot see homelessness prevention, prison prevention or the exportation of poverty from people’s lives—90% of people in prison are there from poverty.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question and for the work that he does. Some 80% of offending is reoffending, so something is going wrong when so many people just go round in a cycle. One of the main reasons is related to housing. We have far too many people leaving prison with nowhere to live, so I have managed to get agreement across government to halve the number of people leaving prison with nowhere to live by the end of this Parliament. That is one important step in making sure that, when people get out, we help them to stay out.

Prisoner Early Release

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, victims of rape and child sexual exploitation have now received letters informing them that their attackers and abusers are soon to be released from custody, much earlier than would have been expected. Yet during the recent passage of the Sentencing Act, which paved the way for such reductions in custody, Ministers repeatedly assured Parliament that the most serious offenders would not benefit from these changes. Today we have been told that some convicted rapists and child abusers will be released only half way through their custodial sentence. I therefore ask the Minister two simple questions. First, does he consider that rapists and child abusers are not serious offenders? Secondly, will he explain why the assurances the Government gave to Parliament during the passage of the Sentencing Act have been so swiftly abandoned?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

First, I would like to express my sincere sympathy with the victims of all these appalling crimes. Convictions for child sex offences are at a record high, and we as a Government have made grooming an aggravated factor so that perpetrators face longer sentences. Without the Sentencing Act, the courts would be at risk of grinding to a halt, preventing sex offenders and others from being brought to justice. We have acted to avert that crisis. We are delivering the largest prison expansion since the Victorians, with 14,000 extra places by 2031, and we have already delivered 3,100 since taking office. But if we do not tackle this problem of prisons running out of space, we will be back to where we were again. Two years ago, when I first took on this job, there were some very dark days in the Ministry of Justice. When you have fewer than 100 prison places left, that is dangerous for victims and future victims.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, these issues are very difficult, but we share the Government’s determination to ensure that we do not run out of prison cell space as a result of past serious underprovision. However, I have two questions on early release. First, can the Minister say how effectively victims notified of the impending release of their perpetrators are signposted to victim support services, and how such provision can be improved? Secondly, the Minister has often stressed the importance of technology in the context of early releases. How far away are we now from having details of prisoner release arrangements available online in all prisons, including release dates, release locations, tagging arrangements and intended addresses following release, where those are available?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise the point about prison building, because we have to keep building these prisons. There is a role for them but there is also a role for technology. I have been keen on pushing technology in all parts of the justice system. I am pleased that we have £82 million going into the justice ID project, for example, and there is a load of AI work going on. In fact, if you walk into the Ministry of Justice and see someone who looks about 19 in jeans and a T-shirt, they are probably one of our amazing AI team, who are making a very big difference.

But it is very important that victims are notified as soon as we know. We work closely with those who sign up for the victim liaison scheme. We have the highest ever amount being invested in victim support services, over half a billion pounds, because we want to work with victims to make sure that they get transparency and all the support—for example, making sure that the exclusion zone is right, and explaining what the electronic monitoring provisions will be. It is important that we work together in the interests of victims, and that we keep investing in technology to improve accuracy and improve speed.

[Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)]

My Lords, having previously worked with people being released from prison and having helped people resettle in the community, I know how crucial the right support is after release to prevent reoffending and to prevent further victims. In light of this, is my noble friend the Minister confident that our Probation Service, which was so appallingly treated by the party opposite when they were in government, is now strong enough to cope?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Probation has had a very difficult time, but I am pleased to tell noble Lords that 90% of our probation regions are now improving, ahead of last year. I am doing a series of roadshows at the moment, going around the country speaking to probation staff—in fact, I will be in Bristol tomorrow—talking about the £700 million of extra investment we are putting into probation. There are extra staff—in fact, we have recruited more staff than we expected and more than ever before, and we are investing in technology and more housing too. While probation has had a difficult time, we are seeing green shoots across the whole of the Probation Service, and the support we are giving it through extra stability, extra recruitment and extra tech will mean that it can get back to the levels of service it was delivering many years ago.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I want to draw the House’s attention to a specific case concerning child-grooming gang rapists who are no longer British citizens. I think the Minister will not be surprised to hear me refer to the case of Mr Shabir Ahmed, who we are told cannot be deported because of an immigration law passed more than 55 years ago in a different context. I ask the Minister a simple question: will the Government pass an amendment to that law so they can follow the law and the will of the people as exists now—that very serious offenders who are not British citizens are not welcome in this country and should be deported?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

What I can tell the noble Baroness is that all our sympathies are for the victims of these shocking crimes. It is absolutely terrible what happened. By law, tomorrow this this criminal will have to be released. What is important is that there will be substantial and robust licence conditions under MAPPA, with a recall option as well. He will know that the eyes of the state will be on him 24 hours a day.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, there are 3,650 women in prison in England and Wales. There are 12 women’s prisons and, as it happens, all 12 of them are in England. Of that 3,650, 2,500—that is about 70% of the women’s prison population—are in custody for non-violent offences. Why do the Government not release them, or at least some of them, and redesignate some of the women’s prisons to house the rapists and child molesters that seem to be about to be released?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord’s figures are correct. What I also believe is that most women should not be in prison. I believe most women are victims. When you know that over 60% of women in prison have brain damage as a result of being beaten up, you have to ask yourself the question, “Where is the right place for them?” What we need is a very robust and well-invested Probation Service. We need to make sure they have a house to live in when they are released and that they get the support both in prison and out, so that the likelihood of reoffending can be reduced. With the Women’s Justice Board that we set up last year, we have done a great amount of work on a women’s diversion fund. We already had one women’s intensive supervision court, and we have announced another four, so this is part of the process of getting to a point where we can close a women’s prison.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord agree that tagging has an important part to play in this—the investment in new technology should cover that—and are the Government going beyond that to explore implanted chips?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, who probably reads Inside Time newspaper, because it had a headline about implanting chips. That was suggested by a potential supplier when we had a sort of a “Dragons’ Den” day, and it was not something we accepted at all. At the moment, 29,000 offenders are on an electronic tag, and that will be going up to 40,000 as a result of the changes we are carrying out. The technology is robust and it works, but we are also making sure that we use that technology better by using data better. That means working with the police, for example, so we can link crimes to where people are going about with their tag. We are also very interested in something called proximity tags, which means, for example, that a victim of stalking or domestic violence will know at any time where their perpetrator is so they can have the freedom to move wherever they want, not their perpetrator.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

Can the Minister tell us the projected number of rapists and child groomers who will be released, and over what period? Are we expecting hotspots around the country?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

What is important is that we get the numbers right. While we are here today, our incredibly hard-working and talented staff in our offender management units are working out the release dates of a large number of people who are currently in prison. We have already stated that we think, as part of our impact assessment, that there will be 7,500 prison place savings, but there is more work to be done. We have a quarterly update that we publish, and that is where this sort of information goes. But the most important thing throughout all this is that we cannot run out of prison places. We need to make sure we do this safely, with great communication with victims, but we need to make sure we do not run out of prison places again.

Prisons: Education

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

The provision of prison education is not good enough and budgets have not kept pace with rising costs. I am determined to improve the quality of education by driving up classroom attendance, expanding access by embracing digital learning and strengthening partnerships with employers such as Morrisons, FirstGroup and Marston’s to provide training and jobs on release. Work to improve reading in prisons is a priority and I am pleased to let your Lordships know that Lee Child is our first prison reading laureate.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure we can all agree that education will play a crucial part in trying to reduce the incredibly worrying reoffending rates. The Minister has been very kind in giving me detailed responses to Written Questions. I am sure Members will be concerned and worried, in relation to our education programme providers, that at Feltham 60.2% of education programming was not provided and at Wetherby 44.9% was not provided—and so it goes on. Can the Minister assure us that the programmes will be fully provided by the contracted provider? Will we get a rebate on the money that was not provided? Finally, do we have any means of inspecting the quality of provision and the quality of delivery?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right and I am looking at this on a daily basis. I walk past too many classrooms in prisons that are not full. Some are only one-third full. If I owned an airline and my planes were one-third full, I would not be doing very well. Recent Ofsted inspections have been encouraging, but we need to make sure our prisons are far more stable. When they are 99.9% full, the priority is not education, unfortunately, but it should be. It is a combination of having more stable prisons, working with our education providers to create a more stable environment to get more men and women out of their cells into education, and developing in-cell digital learning.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the Minister, but can he explain why we continue to release prisoners early without requiring or securing a measurable improvement in literacy and numeracy?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

This is the final question that the noble Earl will be asking me, because today is my 600th day in the job and his penultimate day in your Lordships’ House. I thank him very much for his contribution. There are too many people coming in and out of prison, especially in female establishments. The average number of days spent in a female prison that I have been to recently is less than 45, which is not enough time to give people training. The staff we have in our prisons do an incredible job educating men and women. Anna Fellingham, who is the librarian at HMP Frankland, was recently praised by the inspectors for her creative writing courses for all abilities. It is the time that our educators spend with prisoners in stable prison environments that is going to make the difference. We want people to leave prison not just being able to read and write but having the skills for a job on release, so that when they get out, they do not come back.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree with me and the University and College Union that this is the time to make a clean break with the outsourced delivery of prison education and to bring it back in-house to be run by the Department for Education, for the benefit of prisoners and as a public service rather than for profit? Hundreds of jobs look like being cut and we hope this would stop that. Can he make an intervention to ensure that we do not lose more prison educators, whom we clearly need? I thank him for the warmth with which he speaks about prison education, but we need to keep them in and it should be an in-house service.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend knows we have had a mixed model of education in our prisons for nearly 30 years. What is important is that we support our educators and support staff in prisons by getting prisoners out of their cells into classrooms so they can do the fantastic work that they do. For me, the focus is on the right kind of support for the right prisoner at the right time. Prisoners and prisons differ, so we need to make sure we target it in the right way. But when we talk about education and we think about classrooms, we also need to think about workshops, because getting skills like dry-lining, bricklaying, and painting and decorating is just as important in many ways, and probably more important to many prisoners, as going to the classroom, which many of them had a bad experience of when they were younger.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I was encouraged by the Minister’s previous comments. I was going to ask about vocational education and whether the impact of that is being measured. Clearly, all education matters. At a recent visit to HMP Styal, I was particularly impressed by the work of The Clink, which sadly has shut after 10 years. How can the Government invest better in partnerships in that vocational sphere?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate. Styal is my local female prison that I have been going to for probably most of my life, so I am well aware of the challenges but also the opportunities there. The partnership model is something that I have been doing for 25 years, encouraging businesses, volunteers and charities to go into prisons, work with prisoners and give them skills. I am pleased that a number of companies are opening up workshops—Iceland, for example, has recently set up establishments—but, unfortunately, we have 72 workshops that are vacant at the moment. One of my priorities is to fill those workshops, not just with organisations coming in but with internal prison industries. We manage to make everything in a prison cell apart from the TV, the duvet and the pillow, so there are more things that we can make. We are trying to do more work across government to make things, give people skills and help the economy.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that neurodivergent people are disproportionately represented in prisons; a 2021 review found that the figure was up to 50%. So educational needs are higher but, unlike in mainstream education, there is no incremental budget to deal with this. What are the Minister’s Government doing to empower tutors to meet the special educational needs of prisoners with neurodivergence, so that they can come out of prison equipped to live a life without crime? Will the Government commit to solving the complexities of data collection? Without understanding the scale and nature of the problem, it will be very difficult to address it.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I shall address those two separate points. Data collection is something that challenges me every day, along with vetting. As someone who has run a business where I had all the information at my fingertips, I find it frustrating, as I know other colleagues do, that we do not get all the information we need to manage—but that is something that I am working on.

On neurodivergent prisoners, we have made big strides in appointing neurodiversity managers in prisons, but also in focusing not just on classrooms but on the environment where prisoners are. Some of the most inspiring work that I have seen in prisons recently is on autism wings, where staff are heavily trained to support these often vulnerable and challenging prisoners. When they do, the prisoners’ behaviour completely turns around and they go from being challenging, often violent prisoners to being those who really engage with the regime and get the skills they need.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, among the challenges to successful education in prisons are excessive hours spent in overcrowded cells and the lack of internet access alluded to by the Minister. What plans do the Government have to address both those challenges in the context of prison education?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

There are some good reasons why we do not want internet everywhere in prisons, but 90% of the English estate now has digital learning in its cells in various ways: Launchpad or Coracle. My vision is that we need to go much further with that, as well as offering a much wider curriculum on iPads or computers in cells, because that is an increasingly popular way for prisoners to educate themselves.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, today is my noble friend Lord Attlee’s penultimate day as a Member of this House, so I take this opportunity to thank him for all his hard work and wish him well.

The manifesto pledged the Government to work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to purposeful activity. Last week the Minister informed the House that access to in-prison education can reduce offending by up to nine percentage points. Why then has the Minister approved a prison education settlement that will cut core national education in prisons by 25%?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct that it cuts the actual provision: the budget we have has gone up, but you just get less value for money. This comes back to my aeroplane theory: I want the aeroplane—that is, the classrooms—to be full. However, we are doing more than that. We have a working-week trial in five prisons, where prisoners will be out of their cells for most of the day. This comes back to the point that we need to run stable regimes in our prisons, so we can have a regular drumbeat of education and purposeful activity. That can make the difference between people getting the skills they need and them leaving prison with no skills—and, when they leave with no skills, it is pretty obvious what happens.

Better Prisons: Less Crime (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to close this debate on a topic that is very close to my heart. I was thrilled to see that so many new noble Lords chose this occasion to make their maiden speeches. It was heartening to hear references to the late Lord Ramsbotham, who many of us have so many fond memories of.

We clearly have a super-talented bunch of new noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Bi is a champion for the active participation of disadvantaged communities in public life. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of homelessness, and on behalf of domestic abuse survivors and their children. The noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport, has been a determined campaigner on behalf of disabled sports in England and SportsAid. The noble Baroness is no stranger to navigating choppy waters, so I am sure that she will fit right in here. My noble friend Lord Babudu has brought about lasting change to the lives of countless young people as a former chair of the Blagrave Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, brings a wealth of experience, after almost 40 years in the other place. It is a privilege to welcome these noble Lords to your Lordships’ House, along with the expertise that they bring.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his opening remarks and for securing this important debate. I thank the whole Justice and Home Affairs Committee and its officials for the report, as well as everyone who has contributed to the inquiry, including our recognised trade unions.

The strength of feeling in this report is clear and justified. This Government do not shy away from the fact that our prison system is in crisis. Years of underinvestment and mismanagement meant that we inherited a system on the verge of collapse. At one point, we had fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate—that is one bad weekend or one surge in remand away from a total breakdown of law and order.

The previous Government could have tackled these problems, but they were more concerned with looking tough on crime, blindly slashing budgets and engaging in disastrous and costly ideological reforms. As a result, this Government were forced to take urgent action. Through the Sentencing Act and an historic expansion of the prison estate, we are putting the system on to a sustainable footing, but that is not job done. I did not accept this role just to prevent disaster. I took the role because I want to make our Prison and Probation Service a world-class organisation—and I mean the whole organisation: prisons and probation, working together as two sides of the same coin, because the public deserve better. They deserve a system that punishes offenders and protects the public but also rehabilitates and reduces reoffending—but we are a long way from that.

Reoffending rates are still far too high, creating more victims and costing billions to the British taxpayer. We need serious reform, and we are doing serious reform. We need to tackle the underlying causes of crime and help offenders to find a new path out of crime. We need to make sure that our hard-working prison staff and leaders have the time and resources to make a real difference. That is what they joined the service to do. Most importantly, we need to put victims first, to make sure they are protected and can see justice is done, but also to make sure that others do not suffer as they did. There is a long road ahead. I am therefore grateful for the committee’s report and this opportunity to take stock. I recognise the problems that it identified. I am in the business of finding solutions and championing the green shoots that we are beginning to see.

We accepted, or partially accepted, all but one of the committee’s recommendations and today I will address each of the report’s key themes. The report, as many noble Lords have raised today, rightly stresses the importance of clearly articulating the purpose of prisons and the importance of reducing reoffending. I completely agree. That is why I insisted on adding “reducing reoffending” to my job title. When we release someone, we should be confident that we have done all we can to make sure that they do not end up back inside. That means treating addiction and mental health issues, ensuring they can learn new skills and prepare for work, and making sure that they have somewhere to live upon release. For far too many, however, we are failing to meet these basic needs, leading many back to the revolving doors of crime. That means we are also failing victims.

However, this is not always straightforward to communicate, so we must do more to communicate the purpose of prisons and the work that our amazing staff do. That is why the “extraordinary jobs” campaign highlights the vital work our staff do to change lives. It is why our communications focus on proven approaches to cutting crime and reducing reoffending. It is why our Sentencing Act incentivises rehabilitation and prioritises punishment that works. It is also why we are investing up to £700 million more in probation by the end of this spending review period.

The committee highlighted the need for more collaboration between public and private prisons. I agree that there is a lot more room for improvement, and we have made progress. We are developing a digital platform for sharing information and good practice across the public and private estate. We will also build on events such as the HMPPS Insights Festival, where over 8,000 staff from the public, private and voluntary sectors registered. It will take time and commitment, and I am determined to get it right.

The committee is absolutely correct that all our staff deserve to be supported by strong leadership. It is also vital to say that prison governors have uniquely challenging jobs. Every time I visit a prison—something I do most weeks—I am reminded of the stark reality of the job. It is difficult enough at the best of times, but when you are constantly struggling for spare beds, your buildings are crumbling, and you cannot hire or keep staff, then even the best cannot lead; they can only cope. We are therefore bringing stability and increasing capacity. This space enables governors to drive performance, to set their culture and to lead. I also recognise that we need to trust and empower governors to do what works for them, their prison and their staff. That is how I ran the Timpson business. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for her kind words—if I ever went back to the business and had an advertising department, I would like to consult her on how I should approach things. Let us take Mick, the governor of HMP Hatfield. He is often out and about all day meeting employers, working with local partners and seeing how employment benefits offenders out on licence. Six months after release, 86% of his prisoners are in employment. Mick is doing it his way, and it is clearly working.

We will prioritise autonomy through the HMPPS’s “free, flex, fixed” framework, and we will give leaders more flexibility with their budgets, including introducing a new self-service procurement process for low-value items, allowing governors to source routine goods and services more quickly. The committee also emphasised the importance of governor development and succession planning. Through our Enable programme, an induction programme is now in place for first-time governors and those moving to new posts. And we are producing a development scheme for governors ready to take on the toughest challenges.

We are also tackling what I call the “EuroMillions problem”. If a dozen governors won tomorrow night, that would be a serious loss of leadership. We need more future leaders lining up, ready to lead. That is why the first cohort of our Future Prison Leaders programme has started, and our national talent committee is identifying high-potential individuals as well as prisons where succession risk is most acute.

Prison staff are some of our finest public servants, but they too need the space to succeed. They need opportunities to build real relationships with the prisoners they manage so they can make a real difference, but they too are often just trying to get through the day. So, as my noble friend Lord Moraes and other noble Lords pointed out, we need to boost recruitment, fix vetting and bring down sickness rates. We have secured a temporary exemption to the visa rules for foreign nationals working as prison officers to prevent an urgent staffing crisis, but that is not a long-term solution. We will improve training and make sure staff get the recognition they deserve. Of course, that is easier with consistent leadership, and I hope I am doing my bit. My goal is to be the longest-serving Prisons Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: I hope that I am not offered an early release.

We are also helping potential officers to understand the realities of prison work. This includes supporting governors to offer familiarisation visits to applicants. Informed by my own independent review, we are improving training through the Enable programme, and we are rewriting initial prison officer training so that it goes well beyond the current 10 weeks. It will instead become part of a year-long induction. This means that officers will get the best possible start.

We also know that, despite brilliant work, prison staff can often go unnoticed. I will continue to champion their work in public life, which is why our proposal for a King’s Prison Service medal to recognise excellence in the Prison Service is going to the honours committee this month. We are seeing continued progress in retention. In the latest published data, the resignation rate for officers in bands 3 to 5 was 7%, the lowest in four years. These green shoots are very welcome.

Let me turn to the power of purposeful activity. Noble Lords will be aware of the importance I place on prisoner skills and employment. I saw at first hand in the workshops I opened and the prisons I recruited from in the Timpson business how employment helps. The data is clear. Access to in-prison education and employment upon release can both reduce reoffending by up to nine percentage points, but, once again, we also need to tackle the broader issues. Prisons cannot run consistent and meaningful programmes if they are at full capacity or if their facilities are falling down, so we must bring stability and sustainability to the system.

But I know that is not the only challenge. The education budget has not kept pace with rising costs. Despite contracts that improve quality, we can buy fewer hours overall, so we are making sure that as many prisoners possible can access the training on offer. We are increasing the potential of digital systems to help more prisoners learn, and we are expanding literacy initiatives—I am delighted that Lee Child is our first ever Prison Reading Laureate. We will continue to support governors to commission vocational courses and link up with employers, charities and local partners. That includes our new regional employment councils which are furthering the work of prison employment advisory boards. It is also important that prisoners maintain positive relationships with their family and the outside world, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, continually champions. That is why I negotiated a 20% reduction in phone call costs for prisoners—because maintaining those links helps to turn lives around.

The committee’s final theme was accountability and oversight. I greatly value the independent scrutiny of our chief inspectors, Charlie Taylor, Martin Jones and Martyn Oliver. I meet them regularly, but I agree that there is room for more collaboration. We are reviewing the role of the independent monitoring boards, alongside other oversight bodies, and I will update your Lordships’ House on our conclusions in due course.

Parliamentary accountability is also vital, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I regularly appear before Select Committees. I hope noble Lords know that I am always keen to discuss any proposals to reduce reoffending and help people turn their lives around. It is important to note that we are seeing an uptick in HMIP scores, but there is still a very long way to go. I do not want to settle for “good enough”. I am really competitive and I want to run world-class prisons. We are starting to see things move, and that deserves recognition.

It is clear that we inherited a system in crisis and we are putting in the hard work to fix it, but we are also being incredibly ambitious, with our target to halve the number of prisoners released with nowhere to live—an agreed cross-government commitment—our once-in-a-generation reforms of our courts and sentencing, and innovations such as intensive supervision courts. Transformation will take several years but, if we get this right, reoffending will fall, the public will be safer and we will have fewer victims.

I thank noble Lords again for the opportunity to respond to this important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing it and the members of the committee for the work that has gone into this report. I confirm that I will provide them with an update in March. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed today. I am very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate in due course. I have tried to respond to as many of the points raised as possible but, due to the fantastically high number of noble Lords taking part and the limitations on time, I regret that I cannot cover everything. I will specifically update the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, on the points that they raised. Of course, I also give my continued thanks for the dedication of our prison and probation staff who keep the system running day in, day out. I am proud to have them as colleagues.

Separation Centres Review

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when it comes to the basic question that has already been raised today—the European Convention on Human Rights—I am afraid that my Benches very much disagree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. It was Churchill who said that it is the way you treat your prisoners that defines you as civilised. So are we going to make sure that we define their rights? If we look at this in practical terms, how are we going to balance this out?

If we are going to make sure that the prison officers in charge of this are safe—that is surely one of the most important parts here—when will the Minister be able to tell us whether we have gone through the improved training programmes that have been suggested and when they will have the equipment they need? These are two fundamental things.

The secure centres mean that we are not going to allow this highly dangerous section of prisoners into the main prison population, which is right; radicalisation has always been a problem in prisons, and we are doing something to stop it here. It is not only Islamic terrorists but far-right extremists—I think it was 60%, 30% and then 10% of other groups, if I understood the figures right. What are we doing to make sure these people are isolated and do not make the situation worse, and are we going to make sure that those who are containing it are properly equipped? That is the basic question here.

I appreciate that the Government have moved and have accepted Jonathan Hall’s recommendations. The timeframe is very important, as then we will know what we are going to expect from the Government and will be able to judge how it has succeeded. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these basic questions in fairly short order.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss with your Lordships this evening Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres and the Government’s response to it. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their contributions.

On 12 April 2025, three prison officers in the separation centre at HMP Frankland were brutally attacked. I want first to pay tribute to those brave officers, and I am sure noble Lords will join me in wishing them well in their continued recovery. I have visited separation centres and seen the brilliant work our staff do first hand. These are specialist, high-control units located within three high security prisons which hold the most pernicious extremist and terrorist offenders. They are designed to protect other prisoners, staff and the public. I also visited HMP Frankland shortly after the attack last April and met the brave officers who serve there. I will say it again because it cannot be said enough times: these are dedicated professionals carrying out an absolutely essential public service.

Following the attack at HMP Frankland, the Government acted immediately to strengthen protections for front-line staff. We also invested £15 million in prison security straightaway, increasing the number of stab-proof vests available for front-line officers from 750 to 10,000, as well as providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of Tasers. The Government also appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review into separation centres in order to learn from his findings and to reduce the risk of such an incident ever happening again. We are grateful to Jonathan for his work.

The findings are clear. The core principle behind separation centres remains sound but the system must improve. Jonathan’s report, which was published on 3 February, makes 13 recommendations to strengthen safety, sharpen accountability and modernise how separation centres operate. The Government have accepted all 13 recommendations, and in some areas have committed to going even further. Full details can be found in the published government response; however, I would like to highlight some specific issues raised by Jonathan, and the Government’s action in response to them.

First, the review identifies that some terrorist offenders present what are described as latent risks: a threat that may not always be visible but is no less dangerous to other prisoners, staff and the broader public. In response, we will continue to invest in the tools, training and support staff need to manage terrorist risk safely and confidently.

To give a bit more granular detail on that for the noble Lord, all staff already receive counterterrorism training; they will now receive more as per our response to the review, and separation centre staff will receive specific modules on terrorist risk. The Home Office runs desistance and disengagement programmes, which operate in the prisons and help individuals move away from terrorist ideology. Stab-proof vests have been mandatory in high-risk areas from June last year. As I said, we are training up to 500 staff to carry these Tasers, and staff can access helmets, batons and shields.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Things such as de-escalation training might keep officers safer in conflicts. If the Minister has any figures on that, can he let us know here, or later on by letter?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord about the de-escalation training. He is right that human relationships are important in these closed environments. In fact, in all prison and probation environments, human relationships are what matters in turning what can be very difficult situations into safer situations. We are launching a comprehensive, expert-level review of training for separation centre staff, tailored specifically to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.

Secondly, the review identifies a clear need to transform the way separation centres are governed and operated. That is why at the next spending review we will explore the creation of tougher, supermax-style units for the most violent and disruptive prisoners. These units would provide the highest level of control within a new tiered separation centre system, with movement between tiers permitted only following rigorous new risk assessments. We have already started preliminary work on that.

Thirdly, the review found that outdated procedures and legal complexity have constrained the system. We have already improved the defensibility of our separation centre policy framework, and we will go further to ensure that it is robust and grounded in operational reality.

The Government remain committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, we recognise, as Jonathan highlights within his report, the challenges Article 8 can pose for separation centre decision-making. That is why we are strengthening internal processes, developing a robust litigation strategy, and will consider whether new legislation is needed to better protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from legal challenge. We will explore the full range of options to deliver this, while being clear that we remain compliant with our obligations under the ECHR. To be clear to the noble and learned Lord, we are appealing the Abu judgment. Jonathan Hall did not find that separation centres contravened Article 3; he found that our process had failed, and we are reforming it.

Fourthly, the review found that current intelligence practices in separation centres are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focused. We will improve collection practices so that higher-quality, more relevant intelligence is gathered. This will be supported by further training for specialist staff. Working with the security service, we will ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools, and that high-quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions.

Our response to terror and extremism is decisive and determined. The Government will always stand with those who protect the public from danger. We will not shy away from reform, and we will never lose sight of our first duty: to keep the British public safe.

House adjourned at 8.06 pm.

Prisoners for Palestine: Hunger Strikes

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent Prisoners for Palestine protesters on hunger strike in prison from dying.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I am, of course, very concerned for every prisoner refusing food. Our highly experienced staff work with prisoners to encourage them to end their refusal wherever possible. Unfortunately, these incidents are a weekly occurrence in our prisons, with hundreds of cases each year. We have long-standing procedures in place to ensure prisoner safety, our NHS partners are responsible for prison healthcare, and prison staff work with them to ensure prisoners can access the equivalent standard and range of services available in the community. If a prisoner requires hospital care, this will be facilitated.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, with many Prisoners for Palestine protesters held on prolonged remand without bail for non-violent offences, having undertaken life-threatening hunger strikes, what immediate measures are there to protect the lives and health of future hunger-striking political prisoners? Over 100 years ago, suffragettes were force-fed, brutally. Will Ministers ensure genuinely independent medical oversight, respect for prisoners’ rights, family access, the proper review and granting of bail, and full compliance with the UK’s obligations under domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights? If any political hunger striker ever died, Ministers would never be forgiven.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Let me be very clear. I do not want to see any person in our prisons die, and I am very grateful for the hard work of healthcare and prison staff throughout the estate to make sure that those refusing food are receiving appropriate treatment. Any prisoner who feels that they have been treated unfairly can raise a complaint through the established process, including escalating to the independent monitoring board, which is present in every prison, and asking the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to conduct an independent review. To grant bail is not a power within the gift of Ministers. The decision to remand someone charged with an offence is for the independent judges, and lawyers can make representation to the court against the decision on behalf of their clients. To reiterate to my noble friend, I am focused on ensuring every prisoner gets the best chance of leaving prison in good health and never comes back.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in the absence of clear statutory guidance on how to balance prisoners’ autonomy with the duty of care, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that prison governors and healthcare professionals have a legally sound ethical framework to follow if a hunger striker’s life is at imminent risk?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and concern, because we were all concerned about what was happening. I spent an awful lot of time making sure that all the policies and procedures in place were being followed, which they were. Obviously, this is about how the health partners in prisons work together. Having spoken to a number of them on a regular basis, I was proud of their professionalism, compassion, kindness and care. They did a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord pointed out that prison hunger strikes are not unusual. Now that these particular strikes have ended, how far have the Government got in considering two issues: first, the length of time these prisoners spent on remand; and secondly, whether it might be sensible to establish a specialist unit within the prison estate to provide, where practical, necessary medical assistance to hunger strikers, within the existing guidelines of course, so as to mitigate the costs, publicity and security implications of transfers to regular NHS hospitals?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

So far as the court backlogs and the length of time on remand are concerned, the situation is of course similar to what I inherited in the prisons. We need a sustainable system. We cannot have a system where we run out of prison places and victims have to wait years and years to see justice done. That is why the review by Sir Brian Leveson is so important. One of the areas where we can make a real comparison with the Prison Service is how we use technology to improve the way data links together, so we can speed things up.

So far as how the system works within our prison estate, unfortunately this is a well-trodden path. Even in my private office, three of my team were prison officers before I worked with them and have all had experience of food refusal. They all told me that there is a highly experienced team that deals with this. So, I am satisfied with the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is to be commended for not giving concessions to those who have refused food in this instance. Does he not think that, rather than expressing sympathy for or condoning the behaviour of these individuals, the Government’s sympathy ought to be with the working people who have been terrorised by Palestine Action—which the people on remand and facing charges are linked to—including a security guard who was attacked with a sledgehammer? Is it not more important to protect their welfare than to eulogise this behaviour?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Our prison and probation staff do an incredible job in dealing with some of the most complicated people in this country. When they turn up to work, they turn up to help people turn their lives around, not to get assaulted or be, as has happened recently, hospitalised as a result. It is our job to make sure that we keep our prisons safe not just for those people who live and work in them but also for people who are going into and out of work.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Minister that we have been here before. I express the hope that medical facilities are available to prisoners who need them, but it would be a great mistake for prison authorities to give way to the substantive demands of hunger strikers. To do so would make the prisons unmanageable.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is correct. This is a clinical decision, and that is why the work with our prison staff and health partners is so vital.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, to build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, can my noble friend say something more about continuity of care when prisoners leave prison, whether they have been on remand or been sentenced? I am not talking just about drug addicts, but a whole range of medical issues which need that continuity. Can my noble friend say something more about how he is building on that care?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. It is vital that, because so many people leave prison with drug, alcohol and mental health issues, we carry on that care with our health partners when they leave. I am really pleased that we are rolling out four new NHS neighbourhood hubs working with the probation team. These are based in probation offices so the teams can all work together. I hope to roll that out further. In some ways, it is a bit like the intensive supervision court model—to address someone’s complex needs, you need more people in the room than just probation staff, even though they do a fantastic job. It is where health partners, DWP partners and so on work. On Thursday last week, I was in Southampton meeting the probation teams there. It was clear from what they were telling me that, apart from needing lots more technology and support, it is about being joined up with other government departments, especially health and housing. That joint approach is vital to ensure that when people leave prison, we keep the support around them so they do not come back.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, prisoners on remand are, of course, innocent until proven guilty and as such are entitled to certain privileges in respect of clothing, family visits and reading materials. Will the Minister agree to meet legal representatives of prisoners and initiate his own review of whether those entitlements are being met in full?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Prison rules are there for a very good purpose, and rules are rules. It is the same for any prisoner, on remand or not. If any prisoner is not content, their concerns can be brought to the independent monitoring board or the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a non-affiliated Member, I share the deep concerns of my noble friend Lord Hain. I say to the Minister that it is not eulogising to ask for compassion, fairness and justice for people held on charge, on remand, not proven. Therefore, will the Minister meet with those who could perhaps somehow bring the families and relatives of those in prison closer to them? There is a tragic need for this, and it needs to be done urgently.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I spend a lot of my time going around prisons, meeting staff, meeting prisoners and seeing probation areas as well. There are already well-established routes. If prisoners and their families have concerns, the independent monitoring board and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman are the best routes for them to take up their concerns.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7A and 7B in lieu.

7A: Page 37, line 5, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a victim (“V”) requests the Secretary of State to supply V with a transcript of sentencing remarks that are relevant to V.
(2) The Secretary of State must supply the transcript to V, or arrange for the transcript to be supplied to V—
(a) free of charge, and
(b) before the end of the period specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
This is subject to regulations under subsection (3) and Criminal Procedure Rules under subsection (5).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision about how a request under subsection (1) is to be made;
(b) make provision about the information to be provided in making such a request;
(c) provide for exceptions to the requirement in subsection (2) to supply a transcript of sentencing remarks;
(d) provide that, in circumstances specified in the regulations, a transcript must be provided with the omission of information so specified;
(e) make further provision about the supply of a transcript under subsection (2).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular—
(a) confer a function (including the exercise of a discretion) on the Secretary of State or another person or description of person;
(b) make provision which refers to Criminal Procedure Rules (including as amended or replaced from time to time).
(5) Criminal Procedure Rules may make provision about the supply of a transcript under subsection (2) (including any provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (3) or by virtue of subsection (4)(a)).
(6) A power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—
(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes.
(7) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations under this section.
(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) In this section—
“sentencing remarks” means remarks made by a judge of the Crown Court in England and Wales when sentencing an offender for an offence;
“victim” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the circumstances in which, for the purposes of this section, sentencing remarks are relevant to a victim.”

7B: Clause 46, page 76, line 36, after “regulations” insert “, rules”

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Sentencing Bill return to your Lordships’ House for, I hope, the final time. Subject to your Lordships’ agreement, the Bill will have completed all its stages and will shortly become law. That moment will be hugely significant for our prison and probation services. It will put them on a sustainable footing and deliver punishment that works. I am very proud of having played my part in taking the Bill through Parliament. Apart from a brief Bill on the Sentencing Council, this is my first experience of getting a Bill through, and I have been struck by the fantastic teamwork from everyone involved.

I will briefly set out the Government’s rationale for disagreeing with Amendment 7 and tabling our own amendments in lieu. Before I do so, I thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. In keeping with their approach throughout the passage of the Bill, they have engaged constructively and openly. Once again, their interventions have made this a better Bill.

The Government fully supported the intention of Amendment 7: to promote transparency in the courts and improve the experience of victims as they navigate the justice system. We could not accept it as drafted due to the risk that it would significantly increase judicial workload at a time when courts are working intensively to drive down the court backlog. However, I am delighted that we have tabled an amendment in lieu, which expands the provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts, free of charge, to all victims who request them. This new clause represents an important step forward for victims, ensuring that they are able to request and receive relevant sentencing remarks for free.

Sentencing remarks set out the judge’s reasoning, helping victims to understand how the sentence was reached without having to visit the courtroom—an experience that can be retraumatising for many. This change will embolden victims to look back on their bravery, and to process their experience at their own pace. This clause also delivers a major step forward for transparency more broadly, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and free of charge. This is consistent with Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and the 2017 Lammy Review, which sought to shape a more open justice system fit to serve every victim.

The detail on timeframes and processes for providing transcripts will be set out in regulations, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is that the regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. This timeframe will support requests under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which currently allows referrals up to 28 days after sentencing. I also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that we are considering his amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend this deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the honourable Member for Chichester in the other place for raising important questions about the definition of “victim” and why it is necessary to allow for exceptions. We are carefully considering the scope of the definition of victim for these purposes, but I assure noble Lords that this clause does not restrict us to a narrow definition. We will ensure that there is as much consistency as possible in the definition of victim for the purpose of the code, and we will specifically consider the circumstances that the honourable Members for Chichester and Bexhill and Battle raised in the other place yesterday, where a victim is personally unable to request sentencing remarks. We have no intention of restricting access in these circumstances.

Further details will be set out in regulations, including any necessary safeguards or limited exceptions. We will ensure that any exceptions are limited, and our intention is that all victims will be able to request and receive their Crown Court sentencing remarks free of charge. But there may be circumstances where exceptions or omissions are necessary; for example, to protect the identity of another victim. I reassure noble Lords that these regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations carefully.

I can also confirm that an assessment of the previous pilot for free sentencing remarks for rape and serious sexual offence victims is under way. The results will be published shortly. This explores application volumes, costs of provision and any feedback from the courts on the process. It also includes applicant survey feedback, shared by victims or by those applying on their behalf.

This change represents a profound step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown Court will have the right to access, free of charge, a clear explanation of how the sentence was reached. This is a landmark moment for transparency and open justice and a meaningful improvement for victims across the country. I urge all noble Lords to support the Government’s Motion, and I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks and the explanation he gave for the government amendment in lieu of our own amendment. I also thank him for his sustained engagement with Peers across the House, both in and outside the Chamber.

The Government have now committed to publishing sentencing remarks for all Crown Court trials, and we thank the Minister for this step. It was only in response to our successful Conservative amendment that the Government finally acted. It was regrettable that they opposed our original amendment in both Houses, but we welcome their amendment as a step forward in the right direction.

Sentencing remarks explain the judge’s reasoning in determining the sentence imposed. This is important not only for the victims, whose lives are disrupted in the most profound way by crime, but for the transparency required in the justice system. The provision of sentence remarks upon request will mean that victims who are unable to visit the courtroom, whether for practical reasons or because the experience is simply too traumatising, will be able to understand the reasoning behind sentences handed out to offenders.

This amendment builds on the work of the previous Conservative Government, who successfully piloted free access to sentencing remarks for victims of murder, rape and other sexual offences. This amendment now rightly widens that scope to all victims. It is wrong that a victim of, for example, aggravated burglary should have to pay to read the reasoning behind the sentence of the criminal who robbed their shop. This was a clear gap in the law that will now be filled.

The government amendment contains provisions for the timeline and processes for providing transcripts to be set out in regulations. I thank the Minister for his assurance that regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. Under our current system, victims have just 28 days to submit an application for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This can be a complex legal process to contend with in less than a month. It is our intention, as indicated by the Minister, to double the time that victims have available to 56 days. I am grateful that the Minister shares my commitment to ensuring that victims receive their transcripts before that point. Without timely access to these remarks, victims would risk being shut out of the scheme and denied access to justice.

Finally, I turn to the matter of publication. Open justice is an essential foundation of our democracy and sentencing will no doubt become more complex and discretionary under this Bill. We therefore believe that, in principle, sentencing remarks should be made available to the wider public to maintain transparency and accountability. Although the Government are unable to commit to the public release of sentencing remarks at this point, we note the progress made on this issue and we will raise the matter again during the passage of the Victims and Courts Bill.

This amendment represents a significant step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. It ensures that those affected by crime can access the reasoning behind sentences, and it builds on a clear Conservative record of reform. While there is more to do, we have now made real progress, and we will continue to press for full public access to sentencing remarks in future legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the amendments are certainly an improvement. Obviously, the Bill does not go as far as many of us would have liked, but it is still a pretty good Bill. In fact, if every Government Minister engaged as well and as comprehensively and listened as carefully as the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, this House would be a much calmer place. Perhaps he could give a few lessons to other people sitting on the Front Bench.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their insightful contributions to today’s debate. I would like to think that my years of doing business deals have helped in trying to get this through. What I have learned doing business deals is that the way to get a good deal is to listen to everybody and, where good ideas come from all places, you take them on board: that is how you get a good deal. I hope the Sentencing Bill is a good Bill, because my colleagues and I have listened and it has been a very constructive process.

On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I think I answered a number of those points in my opening speech, but I will carefully go through Hansard. Where I did not refer directly to their questions, I will write to them with exact details, and I am very happy to meet up to go through those points.

For me, victims come first and it is our intention to provide full sentencing remarks. We want to focus on the victims of the case, not the victims of different crimes. The involvement of family in this will be dealt with through regulations. We have a broad definition of “victim” and the exceptions will be very limited, but I want to make sure we get this right. We need to make sure that victims are not retraumatised by the process and, where some very vulnerable victims in a small number of cases may not be capable of asking for these, we need to make sure that that is dealt with. I am very happy to write and meet up to get this right.

It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who have made a vital contribution. I again thank all noble Lords for their careful and constructive engagement through the Bill’s passage. That expertise has strengthened it in many important respects. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his expert guidance. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support, and the Minister for Sentencing for guiding the Bill so skilfully through the other place.

Finally, I thank all the officials across government for their skill and devotion to delivering the Bill. They are a really great team. I beg to move.

Motion A agreed.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, as many noble Lords will be aware, I am passionate about the rehabilitation of offenders. I have seen at first hand how transformative employment can be for those seeking to rebuild their lives after offending.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which I will refer to as the ROA, governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. Its purpose is simple but vital: to ensure that, once a conviction is spent, individuals are not defined for ever by their past. For most people, once a conviction or caution becomes spent, it does not need to be disclosed when applying for work. This supports rehabilitation, helps to reduce reoffending and allows people to move on with their lives. However, this must always be balanced against the need to protect the public. That is why the ROA is accompanied by the exceptions order 1975, which sets out specific roles and activities where fuller disclosure is required. This is typically work involving vulnerable people, such as children, or a high degree of public trust. This instrument amends the exceptions order in a targeted and proportionate way.

Before I turn to the detail, I want to make something clear: even when an employer is aware of a spent conviction or caution, that should not amount to an automatic bar to employment. The Government encourage employers to take a balanced and thoughtful approach, considering factors such as the age of the individual at the time of the offence, how long ago it occurred, its relevance to the role and what safeguards can be put in place. In my own business experience, I have employed many people with criminal records. Time and again, they have proved to be among the most loyal, committed and capable colleagues. That experience has shaped my belief that disclosure rules must be fair and proportionate. They must give employers the information that they need to manage risk responsibly while still giving people the chance to rebuild their lives. We know that finding employment after release can reduce reoffending by up to nine percentage points, which is why we are strengthening links between prisons, probation and employers through employment advisory boards and the new regional employment councils.

In developing these proposals, officials have looked at evidence around gaps in the current framework and have considered the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. This instrument addresses those gaps and does so carefully. The instrument makes four amendments to the exceptions order. First, it extends access to enhanced DBS checks to self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children and vulnerable adults. Secondly, it brings within scope staff employed by the MoJ’s contracted provider of electronic monitoring and field services. Thirdly, it includes registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or by their contractors and subcontractors. Finally, it enables appropriate disclosure checks for pedicab drivers in London, bringing them into line with taxi and private hire vehicle licensing following the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024. In each case, the amendment allows spent convictions to be considered as part of an informed and proportionate decision-making process, when assessing suitability for the role or licence in question. Relevant departments have committed to producing or updating guidance to support fair and consistent decision-making.

There is a compelling case for these changes. The first amendment closes a clear safeguarding gap. Families increasingly hire tutors, carers and therapists directly, often in unsupervised settings, yet without this change those individuals can only be asked for a basic criminal record check. Extending access to enhanced checks, including barred lists where appropriate, gives families the same reassurance that they would have if services were provided through an organisation such as a school. It also delivers on a key recommendation of the Alexis Jay inquiry.

The second amendment relates to electronic monitoring staff. These individuals play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of court orders and release conditions. They have access to sensitive systems and exercise significant discretion. By enabling standard rather than basic disclosure checks, providers can better identify and manage risks and protect public confidence in the justice system.

Thirdly, the amendment covering registered healthcare professionals working for the DWP or its contractors reflects the vulnerability of the people they support. Around 2 million health assessments are carried out each year for individuals with long-term conditions or disabilities. Enabling fuller disclosure ensures that suitability for these roles can be properly assessed and appropriate safeguards maintained.

Finally, on pedicabs in London, following years of operating without regulation, TfL is now introducing a licensing regime. For that regime to command public confidence, pedicab drivers must be subject to the same safeguarding standards as taxi and private hire drivers. Without this amendment, TfL would be limited to basic checks, which is simply not sufficient, given the nature of the work.

This instrument strikes a careful and necessary balance. It strengthens safeguarding where it is needed, closes identified gaps and maintains the central principle of the ROA. The people who have moved on from their offending deserve the chance to rebuild their lives. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of this matter. From these Benches, we are supportive of the order before us. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has, for more than 50 years, played an important role in supporting rehabilitation and enabling people who have offended to move on with their lives. That principle commands strong support, but it has always been recognised that rehabilitation cannot be an absolute and that there are particular roles, especially those involving children, vulnerable adults or positions of trust, where fuller disclosure is both reasonable and necessary to protect the public.

This order is modest in scope and targeted in nature. It does not represent a wholesale expansion of disclosure but rather responds to specific and well-evidenced gaps in the current framework. In particular, extending eligibility for enhanced DBS checks to self-employed individuals and those employed directly by families who work with children is a sensible and overdue step. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse commissioned under a Conservative Government made it clear that safeguarding should not depend on the technicality of whether someone is employed through an organisation or directly by a parent. Families deserve the same level of assurance in either case.

Similarly, we recognise the logic of bringing electronic monitoring contractor roles within the exception order. These are sensitive positions with real risks of corruption and serious consequences if safeguards fail. Ensuring that employers can properly assess suitability is essential for maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. The inclusion of registered healthcare professionals carrying out DWP assessments is also proportionate. These individuals occupy positions of trust and have access to sensitive personal data. It is reasonable that the department is able to take a full view of suitability when making appointments to such roles.

Finally, aligning the DBS regime for pedicab drivers in London with that already in place for taxis and private hire vehicles is both logical and, indeed, necessary. Regulation without proper disclosure would expose Transport for London to unnecessary operational and reputational risk and would be out of step with public expectations.

However, as my honourable friend Kieran Mullan noted in the other place, support for these changes comes with a note of caution. The system for obtaining enhanced DBS checks is already under strain, with delays in some police force areas. As eligibility is expanded, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the system can cope and that safeguarding improvements are not undermined by avoidable backlogs.

Taken together, these measures strike the right balance between rehabilitation and public protection. They are proportionate, targeted and consistent with existing safeguarding frameworks.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his contribution. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this instrument is necessary and proportionate. The amendments before the Committee address clear and specific safeguarding gaps, covering individuals working closely with children and vulnerable adults, electronic monitoring staff, healthcare professionals supporting vulnerable claimants and pedicab drivers in London. They strengthen public protection in high-trust roles, while remaining true to the purpose of the ROA, supporting rehabilitation and enabling people to move on. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned Kieran Mullan’s comments in the other place. I have been assured that the DBS system can cope with this volume coming through. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.